>It is not science that does or does not support anything, it is scientists,
>and scientists are people, people who have ideas and opinions that affect
>their attitudes and results. Some of you seem to be afraid to allow that
>science can enable us to distinguish whether a deposit was produced over
>millions of years in shallow water, or whether it was produced
>catastrophically in deep water, etc. You should be urging more work and
>supporting our results. Instead, I have to reinvent the wheel eveytime we
>open a discussion, because you are willing to accept at face value the work
>of secular geologists, committed to uniformitarinan views, but feel the
>need to challenge everything I do that challenges them, even though it is
>done to the rigorous standards of secular science, and published in the
>secular scientific literature. The discussions of the last few days have
>convinced me that standards are not applied equally, and that if someone
>does scientific research that appears to support a global flood, even
>abstrusely, it will be challenged by those who ought to want to see it,
>uncritically applying references from uniformitarian sources. This is
>indeed strange (and a bit amusing). And I do get some new ideas from the
>interactions, in any case.
>
I can't speak for Glenn, but when I occasionally explode at a young-earth
creationist, it's not for doing what Art does. Art, in my nonexpert
opinion, is genuinely trying to do what I have recommended to other
young-earth creationists: do some real science and see if you can provide
support for your views. However, what we usually hear from YEC's is
repetitions of arguments that have been recycled ad infinitum. And that
grates after a while.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Bill Hamilton
Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems
GM R&D Center
Warren, MI